Judiciary – CatholicVote.orghttps://www.catholicvote.org
The mission of CatholicVote.org is to educate and inspire Americans of all faiths to prioritize the issues of life, faith, and family.Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:09:37 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.2The Catholic Vote Radio Hour is a program where the dogma lives loudly.CatholicVote.orgcleanepisodicCatholicVote.orgmercer@catholicvote.orgmercer@catholicvote.org (CatholicVote.org)No mules were harmed in the making of this episodeJudiciary – CatholicVote.orghttp://catholicvote.org/wp-content/uploads/powerpress/cv-podcast-469.pnghttps://www.catholicvote.org/category/judiciary/
mercer@catholicvote.orgThe Catholic Vote Radio Hour is a program where the dogma lives loudly. Here’s How Many Marched for Life in 2018, According to the Mediahttps://www.catholicvote.org/heres-how-many-marched-for-life-in-2018-according-to-the-media/
https://www.catholicvote.org/heres-how-many-marched-for-life-in-2018-according-to-the-media/#commentsWed, 24 Jan 2018 22:06:04 +0000https://www.catholicvote.org/?p=16442At the very least, over 100,000 Americans attended the 45th March for Life on Jan. 19, according to organizers.* But Americans wouldn’t know that number by reading the news.

The rally celebrates life and challenges abortion around the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion in the United States. Held annually in Washington, D.C., the event rarely receives the coverage it deserves – including the crowd estimates.

Before this year’s march even began, the media already had their own guess as to how many would gather at the 2018 March for Life.

A day before the march, Molly Redden, a reporter for The Guardian, anticipated “thousands of anti-abortion demonstrators.” Similarly, writing for Vox, Tara Isabella Burton declared that “thousands of anti-abortion advocates are expected.” (Though she admitted that, in years past, hundreds of thousands had attended.)

According to Buzzfeed reporters Ema O’Connor and Ellie Hall, “thousands of men and women from around the country” were “expected.”

But who expected that number? Not by the March for Life. In a statement released to press days before the event, the March for Life organizers revealed that they anticipated more than 100,000 attendees. Many in the media appear to have missed that memo, even though, at the same time, some paid close attention to crowd estimates from the Women’s March.

In a piece centered on the Women’s March, The New York Times cited 300,000 at the Chicago Women’s March, according to “organizers.” In the same story, the Times noted “thousands of anti-abortion protesters” at the 2018 March for Life — with no mention of an estimate by organizers.

Many outlets defaulted to just “thousands.”

A report by the Associated Press declared that President Donald Trump addressed “thousands of anti-abortion activists” gathered at the National Mall via live video from the Rose Garden.

Reuters writer Ian Simpson noted “thousands gathered.” In its picture gallery, USA Today remarked on the “thousands of anti-abortion demonstrators” in a caption. And according to CBS, the march regularly attracts only “thousands of activists.”

Many in the media not only failed to cite numbers from organizers, but also hesitated to describe the marchers by their self-proclaimed name: “pro-life.” Instead, they opted for “anti-abortion.” On Friday, an NPR host even called the name of the event into question, and referred to the rally as the “so-called March for Life.”

At the same time, video and photos are aiding the effort to show Americans just how many gather from across the country to lend their voices to the unborn. Hours after this year’s March for Life, pro-life group Students for Life of America released a time-lapse video showing the magnitude of the crowd.

“It is said one of the biggest mistakes a politician can make is to accidentally tell people what you really believe. Senator Feinstein and Durbin made clear once again the deep seated bias and bigotry within the Democratic Party when it comes to people of faith — especially against Catholics in public life.

“We witnessed the animus against Catholics in the past and again last year with the revelation of hate-filled emails directed at the Catholic Church by top level staffers inside the Clinton campaign. Such bigotry has no place in our politics and reeks of an unconstitutional religious test for qualification to participate in the judiciary. What these Senators did today was truly reprehensible. We urge Senator Feinstein and Senator Durbin to apologize for their shameful attack on Professor Barrett, a superb and eminently qualified nominee.”

]]>https://www.catholicvote.org/a-reprehensible-attack-on-a-catholic-judicial-nominee/feed/22The Filibuster is Dead. Long Live the Filibuster!https://www.catholicvote.org/the-filibuster-is-dead-long-live-the-filibuster/
https://www.catholicvote.org/the-filibuster-is-dead-long-live-the-filibuster/#commentsTue, 04 Apr 2017 19:14:21 +0000https://www.catholicvote.org/?p=12719Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has assembled enough members of his caucus that, should he choose to do so, the Democrats can now block the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch from proceeding to an up or down vote. Every indication is that the Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, will respond with the so-called “nuclear option” to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations so that the vote can proceed. While the legislative filibuster remains a longstanding bulwark of the rights of the minority, the judicial filibuster’s brief history is now drawing to an end.

Unlike the unprecedented judicial filibuster of a Supreme Court nomination with clear majority party support, the “nuclear option” rests on several precedents from as early as 1892 up to 2013 when the previous Majority Leader, Harry Reid, bent the rules of the Senate to their breaking point in order to abolish the filibuster for all other executive appointments by a simple majority. While this nakedly partisan power grab was an unfortunate turn of events then and is just as unfortunate now, in the words of Harry Reid, “This is the way it has to be.” The judicial filibuster has become a victim of its own success.

The Senate has many traditions, some dating back to the beginning of the Republic. In 1806, one of history’s greatest villains, Vice President Aaron Burr (yeah, that guy) pressed for a change to the Senate Rules which eliminated any procedure whatsoever for the body to bring debate to an end, and in 1837 the filibuster was used for the first time by the Whigs to delay a resolution favorable to President Andrew Jackson—and in those days, a filibuster could only delay, as members had to be physically present in order to continue, so practical considerations of sleep and bodily functions prevented a bill from being stalled indefinitely.

By the early 20th century, the demands and complexity of governing the vastly expanded bureaucratic state as well as the urgent necessity of supplying the military and enacting treaties following America’s entry into the First World War prompted the Senate (strenuously prodded by President Wilson) to adopt a new rule for cloture in 1917, which allowed a supermajority to bring debate to an end. In all that time, the filibuster had only ever been used for bills and resolutions. Most infamously in the filibuster’s long history, Southern Democrats Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd used marathon filibusters in their futile and wrongheaded attempts to prolong institutional racism before the rules were modified in 1975 to allow Senators to filibuster without being physically present on the floor. The removal of this requirement predictably caused the number of filibusters to increase dramatically.

Meanwhile, Supreme Court justices were not subjected to public hearings until 1925, and even then, the questioning was limited to a few hours. It would be decades more until these hearings evolved into the embarrassing modern multi-day spectacle of eminent and respected jurists being lectured and scolded like misbehaving schoolchildren. In 1967, the opponents of racial equality came close mustering the necessary votes to filibuster the nomination of Thurgood Marshall, but were persuaded by President Johnson to abstain instead. Democrats later succeeded in filibustering the nomination of an appellate judge for the first time in 2003, forcing Miguel Estrada to withdraw his name from consideration. After that watershed was breached, the filibuster was used by both parties in an escalating procedural arms race which has now reached its inevitable conclusion.

The Senate has a long history of rejecting judicial nominations, dating back to the administration of President Washington, and rejected nominations were far more common in the 19th century than they are today. The judicial filibuster is just one way to reject a nominee—and a novel one at that. The party with the majority in the Senate exerts far greater influence the President’s choice of nominee, whereas the only time the filibuster has been used to block a Supreme Court nomination in the 228-year history of the Republic was the exceptional case of the promotion to Chief Justice of Abe Fortas who was tainted by scandal and broadly bipartisan opposition, so there is no data from which to draw any conclusions of its effectiveness. Besides, Senators also have other other tools to block objectionable judicial nominations. With or without the filibuster, the Senate will continue to be a necessary and appropriate check on the President’s awesome power of bestowing lifetime appointments to the judiciary.

More importantly, the acrimonious fight over the nomination of Judge Gorsuch is part of a much bigger movement to restore power to the states and to lessen the influence of the Federal Government. Republicans hold historic majorities at the state level which have not been seen since presidents still had beards, but these laboratories of democracy cannot function without a friendly Supreme Court which favors a narrower interpretation of federal power. Likewise, the legislative filibuster will continue to be a vital mechanism for smaller and more rural states to protect their interests from the tyranny of the majority.

The judicial filibuster was devised during the contentious and heated debates of the Civil Rights Era of the 1960’s and it will now go out in a blaze of glory for the first and last time. There can be no denying that the Supreme Court nomination process has become more politicized in recent years. Just ask Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is only sitting on the highest court in the land because of the vicious and mendacious attacks by the Democrats against Judge Bork. There is a certain irony that the last justice to be confirmed unanimously was the one before Justice Kennedy and whose vacant seat Judge Gorsuch has been nominated to fill. His name was Antonin Scalia.

]]>https://www.catholicvote.org/the-filibuster-is-dead-long-live-the-filibuster/feed/10Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch Promises a Brighter Future for Religious Libertyhttps://www.catholicvote.org/trumps-supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuch-promises-a-brighter-future-for-religious-liberty/
https://www.catholicvote.org/trumps-supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuch-promises-a-brighter-future-for-religious-liberty/#commentsTue, 31 Jan 2017 15:38:47 +0000https://www.catholicvote.org/?p=11934After eight long years of battling with the Obama Administration to protect religious liberty, we may have an ally on the nation’s highest federal court more uncompromisingly conservative than Antonin Scalia.

Neil Gorsuch, the judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit who most notably sided with Hobby Lobby in their 2013 case and the Little Sisters of the Poor in 2016, resembles Scalia in almost every area of law. As noted by the Scotus Blog, Gorsuch only differs from Scalia on Administrative Law by taking an arguably more conservative stance.

Gorsuch would spare no punches in declaring that agencies such as Health and Human Services lack the authority to mandate compliance with statutes that contradict the beliefs of religious institutes and organizations.

Furthermore, not only is Gorsuch a strong textualist and originalist interpreter of the Constitution as was Scalia, he is an ardent defender of pro-life businesses.

His rulings on behalf of Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor showed that he stands with businesses who object to effectively paying for “drugs or devices that have the effect of destroying a fertilized human egg.” The Washington Post noted that in his book, Gorsuch declared “all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”

Besides these high-profile religious liberty cases, the Scotus Blog also points to Gorsuch’s written or joined opinions that criticize doctrines which limit religious expression in public places. His dissents in earlier cases, Summon v. Pleasant Grove City (2007), Green v. Haskell County Boad. of Commissioners (2009), and American Atheists Inc. v. Davenport (2010), show his inclination to defend public displays of religion.

This strong track record of defending religious liberty and a check on the power of Federal agencies demonstrates that should similar cases arise in the near future, Gorsuch is the Justice to count on to preserve these institutions.

Possible upcoming battles for conservatives will be challenges to the repeal of Obamacare’s individual mandate, the First Amendment Defense Act, and Federal mandates on school bathrooms. Should Gorsuch be confirmed in time to hear these cases, conservatives can rest easy knowing the Constitution will be defended instead of the political agenda of the liberal elite.

Even moderate Democrats can agree that a balance on the Court is necessary, and Scalia’s unfortunate passing leaves it without a strong constitutionalist voice. Such a voice will be essential in upcoming cases that go to the very heart of issues constitutionalists such as Gorsuch (and a significant number of Americans who made their voices heard this past November) hold dear.

Religious liberty is an essential part of what distinguishes America as the freest nation on Earth. The nomination and successful confirmation of Gorsuch would make many Americans proud to have such a strong voice for this principle sitting on our highest Court.

]]>https://www.catholicvote.org/trumps-supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuch-promises-a-brighter-future-for-religious-liberty/feed/1Trump should nominate Diane Sykes for the Supreme Courthttps://www.catholicvote.org/trump-should-nominate-diane-sykes-for-the-supreme-court/
https://www.catholicvote.org/trump-should-nominate-diane-sykes-for-the-supreme-court/#commentsTue, 10 Jan 2017 15:26:29 +0000https://www.catholicvote.org/?p=11716In the coming weeks, president-elect Trump is expected to decide whom he’ll pick to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. During the campaign he famously put out a list of eleven names representing the kind of people he’d look for when selecting a justice. He then added another ten names to the list and announced that those were the only names he’d consider.

One of the names on that list stands out: Judge Diane Sykes.

Judge Sykes currently sits on the Chicago-based Seventh Circuit, to which she was appointed by President Bush in 2004. Before that she served as a justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, to which Gov. Tommy Thompson had appointed her from the trial court in Milwaukee. She has thus been a judge for 25 years, at both the trial and appellate levels, as well as state and federal.

Her record over that time has been exemplary. Most notable in our circles was her 2013 majority decision in Korte v. Sebelius, holding that the HHS Mandate violated the religious exercise of a private company. In a decision that set the stage for Hobby Lobby, Judge Sykes laid out a detailed understanding of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that will prove essential in protecting the rights of religious believers in the future. This case was the high point in what is possibly the fullest religion-clause jurisprudence of a sitting appeals judge.

For example, Judge Sykes also dissented and then (after the Supreme Court intervened) commanded the majority in the Alliance for Catholic Education cases out of Notre Dame (Laskowski v. Spellings), in which she said that taxpayers couldn’t claw back Department of Education grant money from Notre Dame. She wrote the opinion in Books v. Elkhart County where a municipal court was allowed to display the Ten Commandments alongside other historical documents. She authored a solo dissent against her entire court in River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Hazel Crest, defending the statutory rights of a small church against hostile zoning. And she wrote a very scholarly opinion in a 2010 dispute about the First Amendment rights of heterodox Baha’i, in which she gave as robust an exposition of the Church Autonomy doctrine as one can find anywhere.

This record extends beyond religious liberty issues to other aspects of the law. She ruled repeatedly in favor of Wisconsin Right to Life against the Wisconsin campaign finance regulators in the wake of Citizens United. Her treatment of the Second Amendment in Ezell v. City of Chicago has been accepted in numerous other circuits as the best way to analyze the limitations of the individual right to bear arms.

Judge Sykes has described herself as an originalist and a textualist. She has decried “results-oriented” jurisprudence, as well as the twin vices of judicial activism and judicial minimalism. As she said in a speech to the Cato Institute, “The [Supreme] Court’s legitimacy arises from the source of its authority — which is, of course, the Constitution — and is best preserved by adhering to decision methods that neither expand, nor contract, but legitimize the power of judicial review. The Court’s primary duty, in short, is not to minimize its role or avoid friction with the political branches, but to try as best it can to get the Constitution right.”

I think it’s fair to say that Judge Sykes, as a matter of judicial philosophy, is very much in the mold of the late Justice Scalia. But what really sets her apart is how she presents this philosophy. She’s likable and gracious; she builds majorities. During her time on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, she was undeniably conservative. Yet she was well liked and respected by all her colleagues.

On that court she authored an opinion, Kalal v. Dane County Circuit Court, that established textualism as the interpretive method for Wisconsin courts and forbade the use of legislative history. It was 5-2, which means she attracted moderates to her side. She still does on the Seventh Circuit because she knows her cases cold and is both personable and persuasive on the bench. The result is a judge who brings others to her position.

And when she doesn’t, she stands her ground. As in River of Life Kingdom Ministries, she’s willing to stand alone against her colleagues when she knows she’s in the right. This is no small task on the Seventh Circuit. While the D.C. Circuit is generally regarded as the second most important court in the country, going by staffing the Seventh Circuit is a kind of JV Supreme Court. Judge Sykes has been on it for almost 13 years and she’s the second most junior judge on it; her colleagues are just that experienced. And on it are some of the (arguably the) heaviest hitters on the bench: Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook, Diane Wood, and David Hamilton. Which means that, having thrived in the Seventh Circuit, Judge Sykes is uniquely battle-tested for the rigors of the Supreme Court.

I think this record speaks for itself. That she also happens to be a woman is an additional bonus. I think having a high-profile woman justice presenting judicial conservatism to the country in a winsome way would be a tremendous asset to that cause going forward. Indeed it’s an asset we should cultivate soon and shouldn’t let go to waste.

The idea—floated recently in Politico—that we should save the female picks for when Justice Ginsburg is no more is exactly wrong: there are no woman seats on the Court any more than there are Italian seats or California seats. There are only seats for principled and effective judicial conservatives. Judge Sykes’s record meets that test, and so I think she would make a fantastic justice.

]]>https://www.catholicvote.org/trump-should-nominate-diane-sykes-for-the-supreme-court/feed/2The pro-life movement’s Big League deal (and what they should do now)https://www.catholicvote.org/the-pro-life-movements-big-league-deal-and-what-they-should-do-now/
https://www.catholicvote.org/the-pro-life-movements-big-league-deal-and-what-they-should-do-now/#commentsTue, 15 Nov 2016 22:02:29 +0000https://www.catholicvote.org/?p=11203The pro-life movement made a big league deal with Donald Trump, and they should praise him for keeping it.

Trump critics are upset at various moderating statements he made in his 60 Minutes interview on issues such as immigration, Obamacare, and gay marriage.

That makes it all the more striking what Trump did not even slightly hint that he is wavering on:

“The judges will be prolife.”

Pro-life leaders should certainly remain vigilant to see these promises through to completion. But part of vigilance is praising someone when they say they will honor their promise.

You don’t make a contract with someone and then publicly insist the person intends to break it. That’s counterproductive and downright rude. Part of vigilance is positive reinforcement.

We should praise not only Trump but also pro-life leaders who negotiated this yuge deal. Christians critical of Trump often minimize the importance of the Supreme Court with a straw man, saying that all pro-lifers got was a quixotic chance to overturn Roe v. Wade.

That is seriously incorrect.

Hillary’s court would not have merely kept Roe. It would have redefined it into a super-duper “equality” right, reversing past 5-4 decisions to force all taxpayers to fund abortions, legalize partial birth abortions, and coerce organizations to participate in the abortion process by insisting abortion “access” trumps religious freedom.

The pro-life movement prevented that catastrophe by abandoning vagueness when it comes to the courts. Gone are generic promises for “strict constructionist” judges. Instead, we have a promise of “pro-life” judges, and more than that, we have a pre-approved list of great nominees. Nothing is left to chance.

(This, by the way, is why people should stop suggesting Senator Cruz for the court. He’s wonderful. But he’s not on the list.)

Mr. Trump made his promises so concrete that he told Hugh Hewitt if he veers from his list, Senator McConnell could block his nominee–as he just blocked President Obama’s nominee. Because, Trump said, he intends to pick from the list. And he is still saying it now.

Pro-lifers should remain vigilant, but not by being Negative Nancys. They should praise President-elect Trump for continuing to insist he will keep his side of the pro-life deal.

]]>https://www.catholicvote.org/the-pro-life-movements-big-league-deal-and-what-they-should-do-now/feed/4Going to Vegashttps://www.catholicvote.org/going-to-vegas/
https://www.catholicvote.org/going-to-vegas/#respondTue, 11 Oct 2016 19:11:50 +0000https://www.catholicvote.org/?p=10671CV just released a new ad in Nevada.

Why Nevada?

Because control of the Senate likely will come down to this fierce race to replace retiring pro-abortion Senator Harry Reid.

Dr. Joe Heck is a faithful pro-life Catholic, physician, and Army veteran.

Imagine replacing pro-abortion Reid with a pro-life Catholic! I mean, who can can forget the shameful partisanship of Harry Reid? He was the epitome of obstructionism on judges and Planned Parenthood’s chief ally for the past 12 years as leader of the Senate Democrats.

Because of Harry Reid, we have Obamacare, taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, and much more.

Reid is finally retiring from the Senate after 30 years. This is our chance to replace him with somebody we can be proud of!

The latest polls show pro-life Catholic candidate Joe Heck leading by a thread…

So we’re targeting every Catholic voter in Nevada starting today with our new ad for Joe Heck. That’s approximately 313,000 Catholic voters…

Joe Heck is just one of many pro-life, pro-freedom Senate candidates committed to approving Supreme Court Justices who will uphold our values.

In Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, Missouri, Nevada, and elsewhere, principled candidates who have pledged to defend life and religious freedom in the Senate are embattled in tough races against candidates who actively oppose our rights and values.

The Senate is our last line of defense against Obamacare on steroids, more funding for Planned Parenthood, and the approval of radical Supreme Court Justices who want to rewrite our nation’s laws.

Joe Heck will be a warrior for our Catholic values.

Let’s step up and help our brother in faith win this critical Senate seat.

]]>https://www.catholicvote.org/going-to-vegas/feed/0Weighing the Optionshttps://www.catholicvote.org/weighing-the-options/
https://www.catholicvote.org/weighing-the-options/#commentsWed, 14 Sep 2016 12:03:44 +0000https://www.catholicvote.org/?p=10314Last week, the anonymous piece by “Decius” in the Claremont Review of Books prompted many responses arguing against the comparison of this election with the last-ditch effort to storm the cockpit on 9/11 as the heroes of Flight 93 did 15 years ago, saving untold lives through their courage. Now, Decius is probably exaggerating the consequences of another Clinton presidency, but if the #NeverTrump camp wants to be taken seriously, they need to explain how the same checks and balances that have utterly failed to hold back the progressive agenda of President Obama will somehow become effective against the far more ruthless, experienced, and cold-blooded Clinton family and their well-tuned political apparatus.

If elected, Hillary Clinton would be able to immediately fill the vacancy caused by the passing of Justice Scalia, thus moving the balance of the Supreme Court the farthest to the left it has been since the 1960’s and possibly even since the 1930’s. What’s more, Justice Ginsburg and/or Justice Breyer may decide to retire, thus opening up additional vacancies to be filled with younger justices, thus guaranteeing liberal dominance of the Court for decades to come. If this election truly is not the last ditch and we are better off saving our forces to fight again another day, we must seriously consider what our options would be for the supposed counterattack.

1. State Level Actions

During the Obama presidency, the Pro-Life movement has made enormous progress with state-level initiatives. We are also seeing a growing movement to enact Religious Freedom Restoration Acts to explicitly protect the conscience rights of not only Christians who hold to the traditional and biological definition of marriage, but all religious minorities as well. These laws are already being challenged and overturned. Most notably, Justice Alito wrote with grim prescience about the case of Storman’s Pharmacy in Olympia, Washington which is now compelled by state law to dispense abortifacient contraceptives, even though they were already providing referrals. Taken with the Surpeme Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, it’s wishful thinking that even the most basic state-level protections of life and conscience rights will be safe with a hostile federal judiciary.

2. Constitutional Amendment

The argument goes that if progressives overplay their hand and usurp the will of the people through executive and judicial fiat, the people can respond by amending the constitution to restore their sovereignty. While this is true in theory, it would be extremely difficult given the hyperpartisan breakdown of staunchly red vs. blue states. More importantly, a constitutional amendment will do no good if the judiciary entrusted with its interpretation is ideologically opposed to upholding the plain meaning of the text. The most famous example from our history is the Slaughterhouse Cases which effectively nullified the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to the states, thus allowing institutional racism to continue for another century after Reconstruction. If progressive jurists don’t like what the Constitution says, they will simply pretend it says something else.

3. Congressional Inaction

A far more likely approach would be for Congress to continue as it has during the last six years by obstructing as much of the progressive agenda as possible. However, during the Obama presidency, the Congress has had somewhat of an ally in the Supreme Court. This would no longer be the case in a Clinton presidency. Where President Obama has had his more egregious executive abuses–such as recess appointments–undone by the judiciary, another President Clinton would meet no such resistance. This option also depends on a big if: that Clinton will win the White House, but her party will fail to capture majorities in either house of Congress.

Even if that is the case, whether in response to judicial nominees, the repeal of Obamacare, funding of Planned Parenthood, NSA wiretapping, due process protections for U.S. citizens abroad, or any number of other issues, Congress has tried to use its power to block appointments and withhold funding even to the point of shutting down the government, but has not succeeded. The theatrics of Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have come to nothing. Even the sorry spectacle of octogenarian World War II veterans storming the barricades on The Mall did not carry any lasting political cost for President Obama. As long as Congress remains essentially deadlocked with neither party commanding a veto-proof majority, there will be no way to stop Hillary Clinton from commanding the bureaucracy to execute her will.

4. Impeachment

Without the backstop of the judiciary to address individual abuses, Congress has recourse to the extraordinary power to remove Clinton from office. The thinking goes, with so much controversy swirling around her, there must be something there that will prove fatal. However, thanks to a meticulous cover-up orchestrated by Hillary Clinton’s white-shoe legal team, Congress has thus far failed to obtain a smoking gun in the Benghazi hearings, as well as subsequent investigations into Clinton’s private email server, mishandling of classified information, and pay-to-play diplomacy. Also, as with the preceding, this option depends on Republicans retaining a majority in the House or Representatives to even bring the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Furthermore, given the difficulty of finding evidence and the adeptness of the Clintons at skirting any personal culpability in the numerous scandals that seem to have followed them throughout their political career (so many, in fact, that they have their own Wikipedia category), it would be out of character for them to slip up now and to be caught red-handed. Even if impeachment proceedings are brought against Hillary, we can reasonably expect history to repeat itself and for the Senate to fall well short of the two-thirds majority required for removal, just as it did for her husband.

5. Convention of States

As a last resort, the states could band together to force action even without Congress. This is the wildest of scenarios that has been proposed. The one appeal of this approach is that the threat of such a convention might prompt Congress to act to save itself from oblivion, as was arguably the case with the enactment of the Seventeenth Amendment. However, in order for this approach to work, there would need to be a specific constitutional amendment more limited in scope already drafted and ready for congressional passage. Proposals like congressional term limits, a balanced budget amendment, or a recapitulation of the Tenth Amendment are often mentioned. Failing that, it’s unclear how such a convention could redress the particular and specific harms of the regulatory Leviathan without toppling the entire beast.

Absent a compelling argument for a specific amendment, the risk of this approach is that even if it were politically feasible (which is doubtful) actually invoking Article V of the Constitution would probably be a disaster. The original drafters of the Constitution were mainly gentlemen of leisure who devoted their lives to scholarship of classical philosophy, the law, and political theory. Given the comparative civic illiteracy of the general public and even many politicians today, it is most unlikely that a contemporary constitutional convention would produce a new system of government that would be superior to the particular genius of the founding fathers.

In summary then, we have many theoretical–if not practical–options at our disposal to preserve the Republic in the face of what will almost certainly be an unprecedented concentration of power in the hands of the Clintons. For those who cannot stomach a vote for Donald Trump, these options must be weighed honestly and carefully. How feasible are they? How likely are they to have the desired effect? What are the unintended consequences and the precedents that would be set in motion by these increasingly drastic measures? How much damage will have to be undone in the aftermath?

Your humble writer sympathizes with the view of the #NeverTrump camp that the risks of a Trump presidency are grave and dire. However, at the same time, all of the remedies listed above would be just applicable to Trump as to Clinton. Moreover, in the case of Trump, the existence of the #NeverTrump movement at all is proof that there would be a bipartisan consensus to oppose him. There would be no such unity of purpose in opposing another President Clinton.

Perhaps the fate of the Republic does not hang in the balance of this election. Perhaps there are limits to the damage that Hillary Clinton can do to our constitutional order. Perhaps we will not have to rest our last best hopes on these fail-safes. These things are all possible. It is also just as possible, and perhaps more so, that to oppose Hillary Clinton, electing Donald Trump might be the least bad option–and the most likely to succeed.

Look, maybe you trust Trump when he says he would appoint conservatives. Maybe you don’t trust him at all. Maybe you have no idea what he’d do (psst – you have no idea what he’d do) but you think that a “maybe” when it comes to conservative justices on the Court is better than an iron-clad, sealed and delivered, take it to the bank “Hill No.”

In any event, regardless of what Trump may or may not do, what is certain is that a Supreme Court shaped by Hillary Clinton would pose a serious threat to life, to marriage, to family, and to religious freedom.

If you’re a Catholic, that should matter to you.

In a comprehensive article addressing this very issue, William Bennett paints a terrifying, and yet all too real picture of what a Clinton Supreme Court would do on the issues that matter most:

Religious Liberty: In the highly-publicized case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court ruled that closely held for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby could be exempt from laws that violate its religious beliefs, in this case Obamacare’s contraception mandate. This was an enormous win for religious liberty, but it was only decided by a slim 5-4 margin. With a liberal majority, you can expect the Court to rule against companies like Hobby Lobby or non-profits like Little Sisters of the Poor. Religious corporations and organizations around the country would be forced to chose between violating their consciences or paying penalties that would likely put them out of business. If liberals have their way, say goodbye to many religious retailers, charities, bookstores, hospitals, medical centers, and so on.

Transgender Bathrooms: Thirteen states are currently suing the Obama administration over its directive to public schools mandating that transgender students be able to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of their choice without having to prove their gender identity. Perhaps no issue more directly impacts the lives of our children than this. A liberal Supreme Court will undoubtedly uphold the Obama administration’s rule and force states to comply. The consequences will be catastrophic. Don’t be so naive as to think boys won’t abuse these policies and force their way into female bathrooms and locker rooms. Parents and teachers won’t be able to stop them. And aside from sexual misconduct and assault, this policy could mean the end of men’s and women’s competitive athletics as we know it.

Second Amendment: Without a doubt, the Second Amendment would become a primary target of a liberal Supreme Court. In recent years, two landmark decisions protecting an individual’s right to own and bear arms – Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. City of Chicago – were each decided by just one vote. (Are you noticing the 5-4 trend yet?) Given the opportunity, a liberal Court wouldn’t hesitate to overturn those decisions. We got a glimpse of this in June, when the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment does not permit the public to carry concealed firearms. A liberal Supreme Court would certainly uphold this ruling and continue to hack away at the rest of the Second Amendment.

Abortion: It was an activist, liberal Supreme Court in 1973 that decided Roe v. Wade and legalized abortion. A liberal Supreme Court in 2017 will only reinforce and protect that decision. It will likely strike down majority-supported, common sense abortion laws that have been passed in the states, like late term and partial birth abortion restrictions and pain-capable legislation. Just this June, the Supreme Court invalidated the Texas law requiring basic health standards for abortion facilities, a law passed to prevent another Kermit Gosnell house of horrors from occurring.

Whether you agree or disagree with Bennett’s conclusion (voting Trump is the only way to stop this from happening), you have to admit that he’s right about Hillary and what the impact of her presidency would be for generations to come.

She’s the Kentucky court clerk who became the victim du jour in the culture wars by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. A judge decided that he, and not the voters, should be the arbiter as to how Mrs Davis performed her duties as a duly elected official and put her in jail for six days for contempt of court.

Not long after that, Mrs Davis had a brief audience with Pope Francis when he visited the USA. This resulted in all sorts of hair-pulling commentary on both sides of argument about what the Holy Father’s time with Mrs Davis signaled. That resulted in a side-stepper from the Vatican in which it said he wasn’t taking sides in the argument.

The ACLU, not being satisfied with getting yes for an answer on the question of the marriage licenses, moved forward with three additional lawsuits it had filed against Mrs Davis. In my opinion, this action was intended to be punishment.

The lawsuits were, as the courts later ruled, unnecessary at this point. They had nothing to do with getting the licenses or much of anything else. The only reason for moving forward was to make sure Mrs Davis suffered.

Now the courts have tossed out those three spurious lawsuits, basing their conclusion on the fact that, since the licenses had been issued, the lawsuits were moot. (Duh.)

None of this addresses the larger issue of whether or not judges can put elected officials in jail based on the judge’s opinion of how the elected official performs his or her duties. This country has been down this road many times.

The Civil Rights struggle, with elected officials defying federal court orders (not just federal court opinions) is an example. There was a lot of back and forth, including using federal marshals to escort little children into school, but no one even considered that the courts had the right to imprison an elected officials based on the court’s interpretation of how they conducted their office.

What happened to Kim Davis was a massive broadening of judicial powers into other branches of government which slipped by unnoticed because of the screaming nuttiness of those who favor same-sex “marriage.” It is a clear violation of the separation of powers which work to preserve us from tyranny — in this case, judicial tyranny, but it could go in other ways in the future — to a judge to summarily imprison an elected official based on the judge’s opinion of the official’s performance of their duties.

Mrs Davis was elected, and that means something. Or it should.

While I’m happy about the court’s decision to throw these lawsuits out, and I am sure Mrs Davis must feel relieved not to be under the gun of a lawsuit anymore, I do not think this case is a meaningful victory for religious freedom.

I’m glad it turned out well, and I respect the efforts of the Liberty Counsel in defending Mrs Davis. But the dismissal of these cases is hardly a landmark. It’s more of a testament to the petty malice of the ACLU in trying to continue these actions against Mrs Davis long after they had already won the things that they claimed they were after.

I think this action on the part of the ACLU was designed to make an example of Mrs Davis, to drag her through the courts and damage her financially and emotionally by using the judicial process as a club with which to beat her. That’s hardly a fight for civil liberties. It is rather, the opposite.

Gay marriage proponents have employed a scorched earth method of getting whatever they want. In doing this, they have made it clear that they consider the Bill of Rights, the separation of powers, and individual liberties expendable.

The sad thing in all this is that they have won every match so far. This court victory, while I am very glad for what it does for Mrs Davis, does not change that.